Save Indian Family Foundation (SIFF), from its experience in counseling victims of “Legal Terrorism”, proposes the following short cut to end the legal terrorism. If followed properly, victims can surely come out of it.
1. Contact your nearest helpline or a helping activist nearest to you and give your case details in brief. Ask for the time and venue of the local meeting of that local chapter. You can also get the address here.
2. Join our Yahoo Group to get in touch with other members from various parts of India as well as abroad. However refrain from discussing your case in detail in the group forum. Rather use that group as a training ground, sharpen your arguments against police, lawyers, judges from the experience that other members share.
3. The Internet has all the information available as pertains to law and judgments. Visit Vakil No. 1 for various IPC Sections, Indian Kanoon, Yahoo Groups files section, for judgments and other legal templates. Also members are encouraged to browse the net and find some information for them and help others as well.
4. The official helplines are only first points of contacts which will enable members to network with others and get help. No detailed advice or permanent solutions can be provided on phone or email. Members are encouraged to meet more and more victims in their area and discuss strategies.
5. Best involvement is personal involvement as it is said, “The best way to solve a problem is to go through it”, if the members themselves are not motivated to go the extra mile, there is little that can be done for them.
6. Expecting volunteers to listen to their calls and long stories is uncalled for. Members are instead encouraged to use the internet to blog down the pain so that more and more people can know of the pain and become aware. The members have to remember that the volunteers are themselves ordinary citizens with their own personal issues to cater to and provide help however they can with the limited resources they have.
7. Finally fighting your own case isn’t enough. All these laws and their misuse exist primarily due to the social attitudes that women cannot be cruel. Till the time this attitude does not change, little relief can be sought in your own case too. Each and every member needs to protest against the gender-obsessed and biased laws and their lopsided implementation full of blunders and faults.
These are some points members need to take care of, so that they can themselves become better fighters to combat this virus of Legal Terrorism in the country.
http://www.saveindianfamily.org/images/stories/Short%20cut%20to%20end%20legal%20terrorism.pdf
Mr.Rebates
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
In New Year gift for India, victims get a voice: the right to appeal judgments
Thursday , Dec 31, 2009 at 0522 hrs
New Delhi:
The New Year will bring a special gift for victims of crime in India. On the second last day of 2009, the government decided to notify a landmark amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), giving victims the right to appeal against a court order acquitting an accused, or convicting the accused of a lesser offence.
Under the amended Sec 372 CrPC, the victim will not need the permission of any law enforcement or prosecuting agency to appeal a court order. Currently, an appeal can be made only if the prosecution so decides.
This and other amendments were cleared by Parliament in December last year, and they subsequently received the assent of the President. However, due to strong opposition by lawyers and some NGOs, the Home Ministry did not notify them.
According to sources, Home Minister P Chidambaram, who was keen to notify the amendments at the earliest, cleared the file today. Once published in the gazette, which is likely to happen tomorrow, the amendments would become enforceable from January 1, 2010.
However, the Ministry has decided not to notify two amendments that the lawyers had opposed strongly — to CrPC Sections 41(A) and 309.
The amendment to Sec 41(A) barred police from arresting an accused for an offence that carries a maximum punishment of seven years without first issuing him/her a “notice of appearance”.
The amendment to Sec 309, aimed at speeding up trials, disallowed the granting of adjournments on flimsy grounds.
Sources told The Indian Express that the Ministry has decided to amend these Sections again as per recommendations of the Law Commission.
An important amendment that will be notified is Section 357A, making it mandatory for state governments to draw up a scheme in coordination with the Centre to provide funds for compensation to victims or their dependents. Victims will be entitled to compensation if the offender is not caught and tried.
Another amendment — to Section 275 — provides for video recording of witness statements in case of offences carrying a punishment of over two years.
Police must complete investigations in a child rape case within three months of registering the case. Rape cases should ideally be investigated only by policewomen.
Also, if a pregnant woman is given the death sentence, the High Court would automatically commute it to life.
http://www.indianexpress.com/columnist/maneeshchhibber/
New Delhi:
The New Year will bring a special gift for victims of crime in India. On the second last day of 2009, the government decided to notify a landmark amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), giving victims the right to appeal against a court order acquitting an accused, or convicting the accused of a lesser offence.
Under the amended Sec 372 CrPC, the victim will not need the permission of any law enforcement or prosecuting agency to appeal a court order. Currently, an appeal can be made only if the prosecution so decides.
This and other amendments were cleared by Parliament in December last year, and they subsequently received the assent of the President. However, due to strong opposition by lawyers and some NGOs, the Home Ministry did not notify them.
According to sources, Home Minister P Chidambaram, who was keen to notify the amendments at the earliest, cleared the file today. Once published in the gazette, which is likely to happen tomorrow, the amendments would become enforceable from January 1, 2010.
However, the Ministry has decided not to notify two amendments that the lawyers had opposed strongly — to CrPC Sections 41(A) and 309.
The amendment to Sec 41(A) barred police from arresting an accused for an offence that carries a maximum punishment of seven years without first issuing him/her a “notice of appearance”.
The amendment to Sec 309, aimed at speeding up trials, disallowed the granting of adjournments on flimsy grounds.
Sources told The Indian Express that the Ministry has decided to amend these Sections again as per recommendations of the Law Commission.
An important amendment that will be notified is Section 357A, making it mandatory for state governments to draw up a scheme in coordination with the Centre to provide funds for compensation to victims or their dependents. Victims will be entitled to compensation if the offender is not caught and tried.
Another amendment — to Section 275 — provides for video recording of witness statements in case of offences carrying a punishment of over two years.
Police must complete investigations in a child rape case within three months of registering the case. Rape cases should ideally be investigated only by policewomen.
Also, if a pregnant woman is given the death sentence, the High Court would automatically commute it to life.
http://www.indianexpress.com/columnist/maneeshchhibber/
Kundapur: Woman Files Case Against Husband, Gets Fined Instead
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:46:04 AM (IST)
Daijiworld Media Network - Kundapur (SP)
Kundapur, Feb 17: In a rare case, the Udupi district court has fined Rs 5,000 to a woman who filed a case against her husband claiming payment of alimony, on the ground that she has filed false case against her husband for harassing him.
Estela Rodrigues, a resident of Kallianpur Santekatte, had accused her husband, who lived abroad, of meting our mental torture to her, besides driving her out of his home. She had claimed that her husband did not pay her any money for family maintenance and asked the court to pass orders, requiring him to pay alimony to her.
After the court served notices, her husband who appeared in person at the court, dismissed the charges. He alleged, that his wife had driven his aged mother out of the house and admitted her into a home for the aged located in Sastan, some distance away.
He also brought to the notice of the court, the fact that his wife had booked two dowry harassment cases against him besides a fake murder-attempt case. He pointed out that the courts which had conducted detailed hearing, had acquitted him of all these charges earlier. He also brought to the attention of the court the fact that even after registering the cases, his wife continued to live in his house for a considerable period.
The court was informed, that his wife's claim that she was unemployed was misleading and that she worked in Goretti Hospital Kallianpur. Documentary proof was submitted in the court in support of this claim.
The court observed that the husband attended much more hearings as compared to the wife who had filed the case. Judge Katyayini who heard the case, dismissed the petition moved by the wife and ordered her to pay fine.
Kundapur advocate Ravikiran Murdeshwar appeared in the court on behalf of the defendant.
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=56929&n_tit=Kundapur:+Woman+Files
Daijiworld Media Network - Kundapur (SP)
Kundapur, Feb 17: In a rare case, the Udupi district court has fined Rs 5,000 to a woman who filed a case against her husband claiming payment of alimony, on the ground that she has filed false case against her husband for harassing him.
Estela Rodrigues, a resident of Kallianpur Santekatte, had accused her husband, who lived abroad, of meting our mental torture to her, besides driving her out of his home. She had claimed that her husband did not pay her any money for family maintenance and asked the court to pass orders, requiring him to pay alimony to her.
After the court served notices, her husband who appeared in person at the court, dismissed the charges. He alleged, that his wife had driven his aged mother out of the house and admitted her into a home for the aged located in Sastan, some distance away.
He also brought to the notice of the court, the fact that his wife had booked two dowry harassment cases against him besides a fake murder-attempt case. He pointed out that the courts which had conducted detailed hearing, had acquitted him of all these charges earlier. He also brought to the attention of the court the fact that even after registering the cases, his wife continued to live in his house for a considerable period.
The court was informed, that his wife's claim that she was unemployed was misleading and that she worked in Goretti Hospital Kallianpur. Documentary proof was submitted in the court in support of this claim.
The court observed that the husband attended much more hearings as compared to the wife who had filed the case. Judge Katyayini who heard the case, dismissed the petition moved by the wife and ordered her to pay fine.
Kundapur advocate Ravikiran Murdeshwar appeared in the court on behalf of the defendant.
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=56929&n_tit=Kundapur:+Woman+Files
Wife’s no Maintenance while granting Anticipatory Bail= SC
Supreme Court: Courts Can’t Impose Irrelevant Conditions of Wife’s Maintenance while granting Anticipatory Bail
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 637 of 2008)
Munish Bhasin & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
J.M. PANCHAL, J.
1. Leave granted. The complainant (wife of first appellant) to whom notice was ordered on 25.01.2008 is
impleaded as second respondent.
2. Heard Counsel.
3. The appellant (accused no. 1) assails the condition imposed by the High Court requiring him to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- as maintenance to his wife and child while granting anticipatory bail to him and his parents with reference to the complaint filed by his wife for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Ms. Renuka on December 05, 2004. She has filed a
complaint in November 2006, against the appellant and his parents for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code on the grounds that after
marriage she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for bringing less dowry and that her stri-dhan
entrusted to them has been dishonestly misappropriated by them.
5. Apprehending arrest, the appellant and his parents moved High Court of Delhi for anticipatory bail. The
application came up for consideration before a Learned Single Judge of the High Court on 22.02.2007. The
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice and submitted that the matter was essentially a
matrimonial dispute and therefore the parties should be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the
Delhi High Court. The Learned Judge agreed with the suggestion made by the Additional Public Prosecutor and directed the parties to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the Delhi High Court on March 02, 2007. The case was ordered to be listed on 10.05.2007. The Learned Judge further directed that in the event of
arrest of the appellant and his parents, before the next date of hearing, they shall be released on bail on their
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer concerned, subject however, to the condition that the appellant and
his parents shall surrender their passports to the Investigating Officer and shall file affidavits in the Court
that they would not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
6. From the records, it appears that the conciliation proceedings failed and therefore the bail application was taken up for hearing on merits. On representation made by the wife of the appellant, the counsel of the appellant was directed to produce appellant’s salary slip. Accordingly, the salary slip of the appellant was produced before the Court which indicated that the appellant was drawing gross salary of Rs.41,598/- and after deductions of advance tax etc., his net salary was Rs.33,000/-. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court took the notice of the fact that the appellant had the duty to maintain his wife and the child and therefore as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, directed the appellant, by the order dated 07.08.2007 to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance to his wife and child. The Learned Single Judge also directed to pay arrears at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per month from August 2005, that is Rs. 3,00,000/- within s ix months. The imposition of these conditions for grant ofanticipatory bail is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.
7. From the perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 438, it is evident that when the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under subsection (1) to release an accused alleged to have committed non-bailable offence, the Court may include such conditions in such direction in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including
(i) a condition that a person shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required,
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer,
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and
(iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted
under that section. Sub-section (3) of Section 437, interalia, provides that when a person accused or suspected
of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the following conditions-
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
The Court may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.
8. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Session Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. The conditions which can be imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail are enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and subsection (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed
(i) to secure the presence of the accused before the investigating officer or before the Court,
(ii) to prevent him from fleeing the course of justice,
(iii) to prevent him from tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from inducing or intimidating the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts before the police or Court or
(iv) restricting the movements of the accused in a particular area or locality or to maintain law and order etc. To subject an accused to any other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on Court under section 438 of the Code. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the Court under section 438 of the Code, the Court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of
grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. In the instant case, the question before the Court was
whether having regard to the averments made by Ms. Renuka in her complaint, the appellant and his parents
were entitled to bail under section 438 of the Code. When the High Court had found that a case for grant of
bail under section 438 was made out, it was not open to the Court to direct the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-
for past maintenance and a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as future maintenance to his wife and child. In a
proceeding under section 438 of the Code, the Court would not be justified in awarding maintenance to the
wife and child. The case of the appellant is that his wife Renuka is employed and receiving a handsome salary
and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. Normally, the question of grant of maintenance should be left to be decided by the competent Court in an appropriate proceedings where the parties can adduce evidence in
support of their respective case, after which liability of husband to pay maintenance could be determined and
appropriate order would be passed directing the husband to pay amount of maintenance to his wife. The record of
the instant case indicates that the wife of the appellant has already approached appropriate Court for grant of
maintenance and therefore the High Court should have refrained from granting maintenance to the wife and
child of the appellant while exercising powers under section 438 of the Code. The condition imposed by the
High court directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as maintenance to his wife and
child is onerous, unwarranted and is liable to be set aside.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The direction contained in order dated August 07, 2007
rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant
to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child
is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained. It is however clarified that
any amount received by the wife of the appellant pursuant to the order of the High Court need not be refunded by her to the appellant and will be adjusted subject to the result of application for maintenance filed by wife of the appellant under Section 125 of the Code before the appropriate Court.
10. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
…………………………J.
[R.V. Raveendran]
…………………………J.
[J.M. Panchal]
New Delhi;
February 20, 2009.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 344 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 637 of 2008)
Munish Bhasin & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
J.M. PANCHAL, J.
1. Leave granted. The complainant (wife of first appellant) to whom notice was ordered on 25.01.2008 is
impleaded as second respondent.
2. Heard Counsel.
3. The appellant (accused no. 1) assails the condition imposed by the High Court requiring him to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- as maintenance to his wife and child while granting anticipatory bail to him and his parents with reference to the complaint filed by his wife for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with Ms. Renuka on December 05, 2004. She has filed a
complaint in November 2006, against the appellant and his parents for alleged commission of offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code on the grounds that after
marriage she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for bringing less dowry and that her stri-dhan
entrusted to them has been dishonestly misappropriated by them.
5. Apprehending arrest, the appellant and his parents moved High Court of Delhi for anticipatory bail. The
application came up for consideration before a Learned Single Judge of the High Court on 22.02.2007. The
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice and submitted that the matter was essentially a
matrimonial dispute and therefore the parties should be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the
Delhi High Court. The Learned Judge agreed with the suggestion made by the Additional Public Prosecutor and directed the parties to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Cell of the Delhi High Court on March 02, 2007. The case was ordered to be listed on 10.05.2007. The Learned Judge further directed that in the event of
arrest of the appellant and his parents, before the next date of hearing, they shall be released on bail on their
furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/ Arresting Officer concerned, subject however, to the condition that the appellant and
his parents shall surrender their passports to the Investigating Officer and shall file affidavits in the Court
that they would not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
6. From the records, it appears that the conciliation proceedings failed and therefore the bail application was taken up for hearing on merits. On representation made by the wife of the appellant, the counsel of the appellant was directed to produce appellant’s salary slip. Accordingly, the salary slip of the appellant was produced before the Court which indicated that the appellant was drawing gross salary of Rs.41,598/- and after deductions of advance tax etc., his net salary was Rs.33,000/-. The Learned Single Judge of the High Court took the notice of the fact that the appellant had the duty to maintain his wife and the child and therefore as a condition for grant of anticipatory bail, directed the appellant, by the order dated 07.08.2007 to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance to his wife and child. The Learned Single Judge also directed to pay arrears at the rate of Rs. 12,500/- per month from August 2005, that is Rs. 3,00,000/- within s ix months. The imposition of these conditions for grant ofanticipatory bail is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal.
7. From the perusal of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 438, it is evident that when the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under subsection (1) to release an accused alleged to have committed non-bailable offence, the Court may include such conditions in such direction in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including
(i) a condition that a person shall make himself available for interrogation by police officer as and when required,
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer,
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and
(iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted
under that section. Sub-section (3) of Section 437, interalia, provides that when a person accused or suspected
of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall impose the following conditions-
(a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter,
(b) that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected, and
(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
The Court may also impose, in the interests of justice, such other conditions as it considers necessary.
8. It is well settled that while exercising discretion to release an accused under Section 438 of the Code neither the High Court nor the Session Court would be justified in imposing freakish conditions. There is no manner of doubt that the Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case can impose necessary, just and efficacious conditions while enlarging an accused on bail under Section 438 of the Code. However, the accused cannot be subjected to any irrelevant condition at all. The conditions which can be imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail are enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 and subsection (3) of Section 437 of the Code. Normally, conditions can be imposed
(i) to secure the presence of the accused before the investigating officer or before the Court,
(ii) to prevent him from fleeing the course of justice,
(iii) to prevent him from tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from inducing or intimidating the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing the facts before the police or Court or
(iv) restricting the movements of the accused in a particular area or locality or to maintain law and order etc. To subject an accused to any other condition would be beyond jurisdiction of the power conferred on Court under section 438 of the Code. While imposing conditions on an accused who approaches the Court under section 438 of the Code, the Court should be extremely chary in imposing conditions and should not transgress its jurisdiction or power by imposing the conditions which are not called for at all. There is no manner of doubt that the conditions to be imposed under section 438 of the Code cannot be harsh, onerous or excessive so as to frustrate the very object of
grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code. In the instant case, the question before the Court was
whether having regard to the averments made by Ms. Renuka in her complaint, the appellant and his parents
were entitled to bail under section 438 of the Code. When the High Court had found that a case for grant of
bail under section 438 was made out, it was not open to the Court to direct the appellant to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-
for past maintenance and a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as future maintenance to his wife and child. In a
proceeding under section 438 of the Code, the Court would not be justified in awarding maintenance to the
wife and child. The case of the appellant is that his wife Renuka is employed and receiving a handsome salary
and therefore is not entitled to maintenance. Normally, the question of grant of maintenance should be left to be decided by the competent Court in an appropriate proceedings where the parties can adduce evidence in
support of their respective case, after which liability of husband to pay maintenance could be determined and
appropriate order would be passed directing the husband to pay amount of maintenance to his wife. The record of
the instant case indicates that the wife of the appellant has already approached appropriate Court for grant of
maintenance and therefore the High Court should have refrained from granting maintenance to the wife and
child of the appellant while exercising powers under section 438 of the Code. The condition imposed by the
High court directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month as maintenance to his wife and
child is onerous, unwarranted and is liable to be set aside.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds. The direction contained in order dated August 07, 2007
rendered by Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in Bail Application No. 423 of 2007 requiring the appellant
to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- per month by way of maintenance (both past and future) to his wife and child
is hereby deleted. Rest of the directions contained in the said order are maintained. It is however clarified that
any amount received by the wife of the appellant pursuant to the order of the High Court need not be refunded by her to the appellant and will be adjusted subject to the result of application for maintenance filed by wife of the appellant under Section 125 of the Code before the appropriate Court.
10. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
…………………………J.
[R.V. Raveendran]
…………………………J.
[J.M. Panchal]
New Delhi;
February 20, 2009.
Counter cases against FIL
READ THE PPOST: Counter Cases in false 498a - Shonee advice (UNDER: Board index » 498a, Domestic Violence, Divorce, Maintenance and Child Custody Forums » 498a Victims Advise Corner)
High Level description, according to experts, you can use the following IPC sections to put counter cases for false 498a.
IPC - 120B, 191, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 209, 211, 321, 355, 378, 379, 406, 499, 500, 504, RCR
Sec499 - Defamation
Sec 500 -- Punishment for defamation -- whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Sec191 -- Giving false evidence
Sec192 -- Fabricating false evidence
Sec193/195 -- Punishment for false evidence - giving or fabricating false evidence with
intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment
Sec199 - false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence
Sec209 - Dishonesty making false claim in court
Sec211 -- False charge of offence made with intent to injure
Also check out link: http://www.498a.org/contents/general/Co%20...%2020498a.pdf
-Good luck!!
High Level description, according to experts, you can use the following IPC sections to put counter cases for false 498a.
IPC - 120B, 191, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 209, 211, 321, 355, 378, 379, 406, 499, 500, 504, RCR
Sec499 - Defamation
Sec 500 -- Punishment for defamation -- whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Sec191 -- Giving false evidence
Sec192 -- Fabricating false evidence
Sec193/195 -- Punishment for false evidence - giving or fabricating false evidence with
intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment
Sec199 - false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence
Sec209 - Dishonesty making false claim in court
Sec211 -- False charge of offence made with intent to injure
Also check out link: http://www.498a.org/contents/general/Co%20...%2020498a.pdf
-Good luck!!
Marriage expenses cannot be returned to wife/in-laws
Here is a judgment of Mumbai High court which says that there is no provision in law for return of marriage expenses. The said judgment is in context of a nullified marriage on grounds of epilepsy of wife which was not disclosed before marriage. However, it seems clear from judgment that no provision exists in law for return of marriage expenses in case of divorce either.
Full text of the judgment with relevant sentences in bold follows:
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/462782/
Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 Bom 62, 2005 (1) BomCR 591, 2004 (4) MhLj 1052
Bench: S Mhase, R Mohite
Sudha Suhas Nandanvankar vs Suhas Ramrao Nandanvankar on 15/9/2004
JUDGMENT
S.B. Mhase, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed in Misc.
Application No. 60 of 2000 on 5-8-2000 by the Family Court, Bandra in an
application preferred under Sections 27 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, inter
alia, making prayer that the stridhan of the applicant be returned and also
permanent alimony be granted. The said application was partly allowed by the
Family Court. However, in respect of part rejection of the application, this
appeal has been preferred.
2. The applicant was married with the opponent on 21-5-1995 according to
Hindu Laws. The said marriage has been annulled by a-decree of nullity dated
16-3-1996 on a ground that the applicant-wife was suffering from epilepsy at the
time of marriage. Even though the said decree was ex-parte, the said decree was
not challenged by the applicant-wife. However, after passing of the said decree,
the notice was issued by the applicant for return of the articles which were
presented to her at the time of marriage by her parents as per the list. It is
further claimed that the expenses incurred for the said marriage of Rs. 31,876/-
be returned. During the pendency of this application the applicant-wife further
submitted the application (Exh.16) for return of the articles and jewellery
which was presented to her by her in-laws at the time of marriage. She has
further claimed permanent alimony. The Family Court has rejected the claim of
Rs. 31,876/- which was incurred by the parents of the' applicant-wife for the
purposes of marriage expenses on the ground that there is no provision to return
such amount. At the time of argument of this matter, the learned Counsel for the
appellant-wife fairly conceded that there is no provision for return of such
marriage expenses and therefore, unless there is a provision to that effect, the
trial Court was justified in rejecting the claim for the marriage expenses to
the extent of Rs. 31,876/-. The trial Court has also rejected the claim in
respect of the golden articles and jewellery as listed in (Exh.16). This appeal
is mainly directed against the said finding of the trial Court. We need not go
to list of those articles but what we find that all these articles, as per the
claim made by the applicant-wife, have been presented to her by the in-laws viz.
mother-in-law, sister-in-law i.e. (sister of the husband), another sister-in-law
i.e. the wife of the brother of the husband and so on. Naturally, as these
Articles have been presented by the in-laws, the applicant has not produced any
evidence to demonstrate that these articles were purchased by her in-laws at any
point of time. However, she had entered into witness box and stated that these
articles were presented to her. In order to support her testimony, she has
produced the photographs which were taken at the time of marriage wherein these
articles were reflected as having been put on her and thereby claiming that
these articles were with her and they have not been returned by the husband.
Since they found to be stridhan, she is entitled to return of the same. The
husband has denied that such articles were ever presented to the applicant-wife.
According to him these articles were not presented at any point of time and he
further made a suggestion in the cross-examination that these articles were of
the parents of the appellant-wife which were put on by her parents in order to
have a show of the presentation of such articles and he calls it as a "mandap
show". Such suggestion has been denied by the applicant-wife. However, it is
pertinent to note that if these articles were presented to her, she should have
examined some witnesses who were present at the time of marriage in the presence
of whom these articles were presented by her in-laws. However, she has not
examined her father and mother. She has not examined any friend who may be
accompanied her at the time of said marriage ceremony to demonstrate that such
articles were presented during the marriage ceremony to her. As against this,
what we have noticed that the respondent-husband has entered into witness box to
depose that such articles were not presented. Apart from that respondent-husband
has examined his parents. The parents have also stated that such articles were
not presented to the appellant-wife and therefore, the respondent has brought on
record the primary evidence to demonstrate that such articles were never
presented. Learned Counsel for the applicant tried to submit that since these
articles will have to be returned to the appellant-wife, the respondent and his
parents are making statements that such articles were not presented. However,
what we find that in that eventuality, these witnesses have been cross-examined
and nothing have been brought in the cross-examination to demonstrate that these
witnesses were supressing the truth. We have gone through the evidence of the
parents and noticed that the evidence is convincing one and the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, we find that appellant has failed
to establish that such articles were presented by her in-laws in the marriage
ceremony.
3. Apart from this, we have taken into consideration that when the first
notice was given the articles mentioned in the list Exh.16 were not demanded.
Not only that when the application was filed, in the said application there was
no demand for the articles. It is during the pendency of the application, the
Exh.16 was submitted to the Family Court making claim towards specific articles.
Those articles were golden and jewellery articles and such important stridhan
will not be forgotten by the appellant-wife till the pendency of the
application. In that context it is reflected that it is a after thought decision
to claim the articles and we find that the observation and finding recorded by
the Family Court are proper and justified one and we find that there is no merit
in the submission of the learned Counsel that the Family Court should have
allowed the list (Exh.i6).
4. So far as the articles which are directed to be returned to the appellant-
wife, we find that the findings have been rightly recorded and no interference
is called for. Apart from that there was a counter appeal filed by the first
party challenging the said order. The said appeal is withdrawn by the
respondent-husband as not pressed and therefore, we confirm that part of the
Family Court's order.
5. The last question which requires consideration is in respect of the
alimony. It is an admitted fact that the decree for nullity has been passed
under Section 5(ii)(c) since the appellant was suffering from epilepsy. Since
the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that under Section 25 the alimony
has to be paid at the time of passing of the final decree. He relied on the
decision in the case of Shantaram Tukaram Patil and anr. vs. Dagubai Tukaram
Patil and ors. reported in 1987 Mh.LJ. 179. He further pointed out that the said
Judgment is relied upon by the single Judge in a subsequent Judgment in the case
of Krishnakant vs. Reena reported in 1999 (1) Mh.LJ. 388 and submitted that even
though the decree of nullity was passed the petitioner is entitled to claim
alimony under Section 25. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that
both these Judgments have considered the aspect that the entitlement of the
party for permanent alimony and more specifically right of the wife. However, he
submitted that the said right is available on condition that taking into
consideration the conduct and the circumstances of case the Court is satisfied
that alimony shall be granted. According to him after marriage, immediately
there was a "Satyanarayan Pooja" and for the first time husband and wife came
together. The respondent-husband found that the appellant-wife is a patient of
epilepsy and on the next day, he has called on to the parents of appellant-wife
and the father of the appellant came along with the Doctor to discuss. Learned
Counsel further stated that the father requested respondent to allow the
appellant to stay with respondent and the medical expenses will be borne by the
father of the appellant. He submitted that thus the fact that the appellant was
suffering from epilepsy was not disclosed at the time of settlement of marriage
and till the marriage is performed. He further submitted that even though on 1
or 2 occasions, prior to the marriage there was a meeting of respondent husband
and appellant-wife, still the appellant wife has not disclosed that she is a
patient of epilepsy. Thus he submitted that the conduct of the appellant and her
parents in not disclosing that the appellant wife is suffering from epilepsy is
itself a fraudulent and therefore, the party which takes the benefit of it,
shall not be allowed to take such benefit and this circumstance may be taken
into consideration. Relevant portion of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 is as follows :-
Section 25.- Permanent alimony and maintenance - (1) Any Court exercising
jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any
time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the
wife or the husband as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to
the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such
monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as,
having reward to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the
income and other property of the applicant, (the conduct of the parties and
other circumstances of the case), it may seem to the Court to be just, and any
such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property
of the respondent.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case what we find that since
the decree for nullity of marriage is passed under Section 5(ii)(c) we have to
consider as to whether order for amount of alimony is to be passed. In view of
the above referred 2 Judgments which have been relied by the Counsel for the
appellant, we do not find any difficulty to conclude that in such a decree the
wife is entitled to have a permanent alimony. However, whether the conduct of
the parties and other circumstances involved in this case will allow us to pass
such order is the main question. It is an admitted fact that the marriage was
celebrated on 21-5-1995 and within 4 days from the date of marriage,
'Satyanarayan Pooja' was performed in the matrimonial home and thereafter
husband and wife were allowed to stay with each other. However, when it was
found that the appellant-wife is suffering from epilepsy the marriage was not
consumated and on 27-5-1995 the respondent-husband has contacted the appellant's
father. The applicant's father and mother accompanied by the Doctor attached to
the Poddar hospital came to the house of the respondent-husband and thereafter
they discussed about the fact of suffering of the epilepsy. The appellant's
father showed willingness to incur the medical expenses for the treatment of the
appellant. However, he requested the Respondent to allow the appellant to stay
in the house of the respondent-husband. This was not accepted by the respondent
and therefore, the father of the appellant has taken the appellant and
thereafter, a petition for nullity of marriage was filed in which ex-parte
decree was passed. The said decree is not challenged. Thereafter, the applicant
has filed this application for the permanent alimony. It is pertinent to note
that the parents and/or father of the appellant have not entered into a witness
box either to depose that the fact of the epilepsy was disclosed to the
respondent husband at the time of settlement of carriage nor the appellant has
stated in her evidence that at any point of time prior to the marriage when they
have seen each other said fact was disclosed to the respondent-husband.
Therefore, the only inference is that till the marriage is performed the
respondent was not aware of the fact that the appellant is a patient of
epilepsy. The moment he got knowledge, he has not consummated the marriage and
called the parents of the appellant and thereafter appellant was taken by the
parents. This shows that had the fact been disclosed prior to the performance of
the marriage, the respondent-husband would not have conducted such marriage with
the appellant-wife. The non disclosure by the parents of the appellant and the
appellant accepting the decree as it is without making any grudge that in
respect of the ground that the appellant was suffering from the epilepsy prior
to the marriage reflects upon the conduct of the appellant and if we take into
consideration this aspect what we find is that the appellant is trying to take
advantage of her wrong or fraud and is trying to harass the respondent by
claiming the amount of alimony. But what we find is that after a decree of
annulment the respondent has married and he is having a child. Now this appears
to be an attempt on the part of the appellant and her parents to disturb the
marital life of the respondent which he has tried to settle after annulment of
the marriage. This is an attempt to shift the liability of maintenance by the
appellant-wife on a husband who was not at fault and who has not consummated the
marriage. Even though the law permits the right of the alimony in favour of the
appellant, however, the conduct and the circumstances involved in the present
case does not permit us to pass an order of permanent alimony in favour of the
appellant. We find that the findings recorded by the Family Court are just and
proper and no interference is called for.
6. In the result, we find that there is no substance in the appeal and hence,
appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full text of the judgment with relevant sentences in bold follows:
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/462782/
Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 Bom 62, 2005 (1) BomCR 591, 2004 (4) MhLj 1052
Bench: S Mhase, R Mohite
Sudha Suhas Nandanvankar vs Suhas Ramrao Nandanvankar on 15/9/2004
JUDGMENT
S.B. Mhase, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed in Misc.
Application No. 60 of 2000 on 5-8-2000 by the Family Court, Bandra in an
application preferred under Sections 27 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, inter
alia, making prayer that the stridhan of the applicant be returned and also
permanent alimony be granted. The said application was partly allowed by the
Family Court. However, in respect of part rejection of the application, this
appeal has been preferred.
2. The applicant was married with the opponent on 21-5-1995 according to
Hindu Laws. The said marriage has been annulled by a-decree of nullity dated
16-3-1996 on a ground that the applicant-wife was suffering from epilepsy at the
time of marriage. Even though the said decree was ex-parte, the said decree was
not challenged by the applicant-wife. However, after passing of the said decree,
the notice was issued by the applicant for return of the articles which were
presented to her at the time of marriage by her parents as per the list. It is
further claimed that the expenses incurred for the said marriage of Rs. 31,876/-
be returned. During the pendency of this application the applicant-wife further
submitted the application (Exh.16) for return of the articles and jewellery
which was presented to her by her in-laws at the time of marriage. She has
further claimed permanent alimony. The Family Court has rejected the claim of
Rs. 31,876/- which was incurred by the parents of the' applicant-wife for the
purposes of marriage expenses on the ground that there is no provision to return
such amount. At the time of argument of this matter, the learned Counsel for the
appellant-wife fairly conceded that there is no provision for return of such
marriage expenses and therefore, unless there is a provision to that effect, the
trial Court was justified in rejecting the claim for the marriage expenses to
the extent of Rs. 31,876/-. The trial Court has also rejected the claim in
respect of the golden articles and jewellery as listed in (Exh.16). This appeal
is mainly directed against the said finding of the trial Court. We need not go
to list of those articles but what we find that all these articles, as per the
claim made by the applicant-wife, have been presented to her by the in-laws viz.
mother-in-law, sister-in-law i.e. (sister of the husband), another sister-in-law
i.e. the wife of the brother of the husband and so on. Naturally, as these
Articles have been presented by the in-laws, the applicant has not produced any
evidence to demonstrate that these articles were purchased by her in-laws at any
point of time. However, she had entered into witness box and stated that these
articles were presented to her. In order to support her testimony, she has
produced the photographs which were taken at the time of marriage wherein these
articles were reflected as having been put on her and thereby claiming that
these articles were with her and they have not been returned by the husband.
Since they found to be stridhan, she is entitled to return of the same. The
husband has denied that such articles were ever presented to the applicant-wife.
According to him these articles were not presented at any point of time and he
further made a suggestion in the cross-examination that these articles were of
the parents of the appellant-wife which were put on by her parents in order to
have a show of the presentation of such articles and he calls it as a "mandap
show". Such suggestion has been denied by the applicant-wife. However, it is
pertinent to note that if these articles were presented to her, she should have
examined some witnesses who were present at the time of marriage in the presence
of whom these articles were presented by her in-laws. However, she has not
examined her father and mother. She has not examined any friend who may be
accompanied her at the time of said marriage ceremony to demonstrate that such
articles were presented during the marriage ceremony to her. As against this,
what we have noticed that the respondent-husband has entered into witness box to
depose that such articles were not presented. Apart from that respondent-husband
has examined his parents. The parents have also stated that such articles were
not presented to the appellant-wife and therefore, the respondent has brought on
record the primary evidence to demonstrate that such articles were never
presented. Learned Counsel for the applicant tried to submit that since these
articles will have to be returned to the appellant-wife, the respondent and his
parents are making statements that such articles were not presented. However,
what we find that in that eventuality, these witnesses have been cross-examined
and nothing have been brought in the cross-examination to demonstrate that these
witnesses were supressing the truth. We have gone through the evidence of the
parents and noticed that the evidence is convincing one and the trial Court has
rightly appreciated the evidence. Therefore, we find that appellant has failed
to establish that such articles were presented by her in-laws in the marriage
ceremony.
3. Apart from this, we have taken into consideration that when the first
notice was given the articles mentioned in the list Exh.16 were not demanded.
Not only that when the application was filed, in the said application there was
no demand for the articles. It is during the pendency of the application, the
Exh.16 was submitted to the Family Court making claim towards specific articles.
Those articles were golden and jewellery articles and such important stridhan
will not be forgotten by the appellant-wife till the pendency of the
application. In that context it is reflected that it is a after thought decision
to claim the articles and we find that the observation and finding recorded by
the Family Court are proper and justified one and we find that there is no merit
in the submission of the learned Counsel that the Family Court should have
allowed the list (Exh.i6).
4. So far as the articles which are directed to be returned to the appellant-
wife, we find that the findings have been rightly recorded and no interference
is called for. Apart from that there was a counter appeal filed by the first
party challenging the said order. The said appeal is withdrawn by the
respondent-husband as not pressed and therefore, we confirm that part of the
Family Court's order.
5. The last question which requires consideration is in respect of the
alimony. It is an admitted fact that the decree for nullity has been passed
under Section 5(ii)(c) since the appellant was suffering from epilepsy. Since
the learned Advocate for the appellant submits that under Section 25 the alimony
has to be paid at the time of passing of the final decree. He relied on the
decision in the case of Shantaram Tukaram Patil and anr. vs. Dagubai Tukaram
Patil and ors. reported in 1987 Mh.LJ. 179. He further pointed out that the said
Judgment is relied upon by the single Judge in a subsequent Judgment in the case
of Krishnakant vs. Reena reported in 1999 (1) Mh.LJ. 388 and submitted that even
though the decree of nullity was passed the petitioner is entitled to claim
alimony under Section 25. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that
both these Judgments have considered the aspect that the entitlement of the
party for permanent alimony and more specifically right of the wife. However, he
submitted that the said right is available on condition that taking into
consideration the conduct and the circumstances of case the Court is satisfied
that alimony shall be granted. According to him after marriage, immediately
there was a "Satyanarayan Pooja" and for the first time husband and wife came
together. The respondent-husband found that the appellant-wife is a patient of
epilepsy and on the next day, he has called on to the parents of appellant-wife
and the father of the appellant came along with the Doctor to discuss. Learned
Counsel further stated that the father requested respondent to allow the
appellant to stay with respondent and the medical expenses will be borne by the
father of the appellant. He submitted that thus the fact that the appellant was
suffering from epilepsy was not disclosed at the time of settlement of marriage
and till the marriage is performed. He further submitted that even though on 1
or 2 occasions, prior to the marriage there was a meeting of respondent husband
and appellant-wife, still the appellant wife has not disclosed that she is a
patient of epilepsy. Thus he submitted that the conduct of the appellant and her
parents in not disclosing that the appellant wife is suffering from epilepsy is
itself a fraudulent and therefore, the party which takes the benefit of it,
shall not be allowed to take such benefit and this circumstance may be taken
into consideration. Relevant portion of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 is as follows :-
Section 25.- Permanent alimony and maintenance - (1) Any Court exercising
jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any decree or at any
time subsequent thereto, on application made to it for the purpose by either the
wife or the husband as the case may be, order that the respondent shall pay to
the applicant for her or his maintenance and support such gross sum or such
monthly or periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as,
having reward to the respondent's own income and other property, if any, the
income and other property of the applicant, (the conduct of the parties and
other circumstances of the case), it may seem to the Court to be just, and any
such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property
of the respondent.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case what we find that since
the decree for nullity of marriage is passed under Section 5(ii)(c) we have to
consider as to whether order for amount of alimony is to be passed. In view of
the above referred 2 Judgments which have been relied by the Counsel for the
appellant, we do not find any difficulty to conclude that in such a decree the
wife is entitled to have a permanent alimony. However, whether the conduct of
the parties and other circumstances involved in this case will allow us to pass
such order is the main question. It is an admitted fact that the marriage was
celebrated on 21-5-1995 and within 4 days from the date of marriage,
'Satyanarayan Pooja' was performed in the matrimonial home and thereafter
husband and wife were allowed to stay with each other. However, when it was
found that the appellant-wife is suffering from epilepsy the marriage was not
consumated and on 27-5-1995 the respondent-husband has contacted the appellant's
father. The applicant's father and mother accompanied by the Doctor attached to
the Poddar hospital came to the house of the respondent-husband and thereafter
they discussed about the fact of suffering of the epilepsy. The appellant's
father showed willingness to incur the medical expenses for the treatment of the
appellant. However, he requested the Respondent to allow the appellant to stay
in the house of the respondent-husband. This was not accepted by the respondent
and therefore, the father of the appellant has taken the appellant and
thereafter, a petition for nullity of marriage was filed in which ex-parte
decree was passed. The said decree is not challenged. Thereafter, the applicant
has filed this application for the permanent alimony. It is pertinent to note
that the parents and/or father of the appellant have not entered into a witness
box either to depose that the fact of the epilepsy was disclosed to the
respondent husband at the time of settlement of carriage nor the appellant has
stated in her evidence that at any point of time prior to the marriage when they
have seen each other said fact was disclosed to the respondent-husband.
Therefore, the only inference is that till the marriage is performed the
respondent was not aware of the fact that the appellant is a patient of
epilepsy. The moment he got knowledge, he has not consummated the marriage and
called the parents of the appellant and thereafter appellant was taken by the
parents. This shows that had the fact been disclosed prior to the performance of
the marriage, the respondent-husband would not have conducted such marriage with
the appellant-wife. The non disclosure by the parents of the appellant and the
appellant accepting the decree as it is without making any grudge that in
respect of the ground that the appellant was suffering from the epilepsy prior
to the marriage reflects upon the conduct of the appellant and if we take into
consideration this aspect what we find is that the appellant is trying to take
advantage of her wrong or fraud and is trying to harass the respondent by
claiming the amount of alimony. But what we find is that after a decree of
annulment the respondent has married and he is having a child. Now this appears
to be an attempt on the part of the appellant and her parents to disturb the
marital life of the respondent which he has tried to settle after annulment of
the marriage. This is an attempt to shift the liability of maintenance by the
appellant-wife on a husband who was not at fault and who has not consummated the
marriage. Even though the law permits the right of the alimony in favour of the
appellant, however, the conduct and the circumstances involved in the present
case does not permit us to pass an order of permanent alimony in favour of the
appellant. We find that the findings recorded by the Family Court are just and
proper and no interference is called for.
6. In the result, we find that there is no substance in the appeal and hence,
appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Failure to maintain case diary by police is misconduct: CAT
December 30, 2009,
New Delhi: Failure to maintain case diary by a police officer amounts to "misconduct", the Central Administrative Tribunal has ruled while dismissing an appeal filed by a Delhi police sub-inspector.
"Writing of case diary while investigating the matter is the duty of police officials, therefore, not writing the same amounts to misconduct.
"It is correct that no ill motives are attached. But nonetheless, if due procedure is not followed and everyone starts taking decision at his own level without bothering for superiors, the whole system would get vitiated, therefore, it cannot be stated that no misconduct was committed by the sub-inspector," the tribunal said.
The CAT, comprising Vice Chairman L K Joshi and Member Meera Chhibber, passed the order on the plea of sub-inspector Rajender Bhardwaj, challenging punishment of forfeiture of three years of his service for not maintaining a case diary and not consulting the superior officials with regard to a criminal case.
Bhardwaj pleaded not guilty for misconduct for not maintaining a case diary as his previous officers had also been doing the same. He said that no ill motive was attached to his action of not consulting the SHO or Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).
Delhi police said that if the previous officer had not submitted the case diary, it does not mean Bhardwaj should also not write the case diary.
The Delhi Police said, "It does not minimise his misconduct. Every officer is supposed to maintain his case diary to show the progress of the investigation. Since he had not complied with the directions, he has rightly been punished by the authorities".
"When directions are given to further investigate and report to the SHO, Bhardwaj was under a duty to follow those directions," the tribunal said.
New Delhi: Failure to maintain case diary by a police officer amounts to "misconduct", the Central Administrative Tribunal has ruled while dismissing an appeal filed by a Delhi police sub-inspector.
"Writing of case diary while investigating the matter is the duty of police officials, therefore, not writing the same amounts to misconduct.
"It is correct that no ill motives are attached. But nonetheless, if due procedure is not followed and everyone starts taking decision at his own level without bothering for superiors, the whole system would get vitiated, therefore, it cannot be stated that no misconduct was committed by the sub-inspector," the tribunal said.
The CAT, comprising Vice Chairman L K Joshi and Member Meera Chhibber, passed the order on the plea of sub-inspector Rajender Bhardwaj, challenging punishment of forfeiture of three years of his service for not maintaining a case diary and not consulting the superior officials with regard to a criminal case.
Bhardwaj pleaded not guilty for misconduct for not maintaining a case diary as his previous officers had also been doing the same. He said that no ill motive was attached to his action of not consulting the SHO or Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP).
Delhi police said that if the previous officer had not submitted the case diary, it does not mean Bhardwaj should also not write the case diary.
The Delhi Police said, "It does not minimise his misconduct. Every officer is supposed to maintain his case diary to show the progress of the investigation. Since he had not complied with the directions, he has rightly been punished by the authorities".
"When directions are given to further investigate and report to the SHO, Bhardwaj was under a duty to follow those directions," the tribunal said.
UP minister faces dowry allegations
IANS, 1 February 2010, 12:24pm IST
LUCKNOW: An enquiry has been initiated against Uttar Pradesh Sports Minister Ayodhya Prasad Pal over allegations that he called off his son's marriage because the woman's family failed to meet a Rs.5 million dowry demand, police said on Monday. ( Watch Video )
Pal's son Om Dutt was apparently engaged to the daughter of a doctor in Chitrakoot district in October 2008 but the minister has now called off the engagement allegedly over the family's inability to pay dowry.
"The inquiry has been initiated against the minister and his family also, following a written complaint registered by the doctor Prabal Pratap," district police chief Aparna H S told reporters in Chitrakoot, some 280 km from Lucknow.
According to Pratap, the engagement ceremony took place Oct 7, 2008 at a tourist bungalow in Karvi town in Chitrakoot. Since then, the minister has been delaying the marriage and is now demanding dowry.
"He (minister) now says the only way to get my daughter married to his son is to give Rs.50 lakh (Rs.5 million). The minister has even openly challenged me to get a case registered against him for demanding dowry," Pratap told reporters.
"I have also learnt that the minister has now arranged his son's marriage to the daughter of an engineer in the irrigation department in Allahabad," he added.
According to Pratap, he had submitted necessary evidence to prove he had spent over Rs.500,000 on gifts that were given to Pal's family on the occasion of the engagement ceremony.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/UP-minister-faces-dowry-allegations/articleshow/5523264.cms
LUCKNOW: An enquiry has been initiated against Uttar Pradesh Sports Minister Ayodhya Prasad Pal over allegations that he called off his son's marriage because the woman's family failed to meet a Rs.5 million dowry demand, police said on Monday. ( Watch Video )
Pal's son Om Dutt was apparently engaged to the daughter of a doctor in Chitrakoot district in October 2008 but the minister has now called off the engagement allegedly over the family's inability to pay dowry.
"The inquiry has been initiated against the minister and his family also, following a written complaint registered by the doctor Prabal Pratap," district police chief Aparna H S told reporters in Chitrakoot, some 280 km from Lucknow.
According to Pratap, the engagement ceremony took place Oct 7, 2008 at a tourist bungalow in Karvi town in Chitrakoot. Since then, the minister has been delaying the marriage and is now demanding dowry.
"He (minister) now says the only way to get my daughter married to his son is to give Rs.50 lakh (Rs.5 million). The minister has even openly challenged me to get a case registered against him for demanding dowry," Pratap told reporters.
"I have also learnt that the minister has now arranged his son's marriage to the daughter of an engineer in the irrigation department in Allahabad," he added.
According to Pratap, he had submitted necessary evidence to prove he had spent over Rs.500,000 on gifts that were given to Pal's family on the occasion of the engagement ceremony.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/UP-minister-faces-dowry-allegations/articleshow/5523264.cms
Sunday, January 31, 2010
HC reprimands inept ASJ
Abhinav Garg, TNN, 29 January 2010, 02:17am IST
Topics:Delhi High Court R Justice Suresh Kait Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court reprimanded an additional sessions judge for blindly relying on the version of the prosecution and ignoring actual evidence while delivering judgments. Equating the lapse to a judge sleeping on his job, a division bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Suresh Kait on Wednesday termed it as nothing short of "serious blunder'' and "misdemeanour.''
The HC was alarmed to note that not just once but five times it came across cases where additional sessions judge Narottam Kaushal simply copied extracts of the chargesheet onto his verdict and ignored what the witnessess actually said in court. "Where the judge proceeds to sleep or take a short or long nap, the casualty is life and liberty of the accused,'' the judges noted, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal had dealt in a cavalier fashion with cases where the maximum penalty is death. HC was surprised to note that the ASJ didn't even record the different stand taken by witnesses in court, instead chose to stick to facts as mentioned in the chargesheet.
"This is the fifth decision noted by us in the last 10 working days, author whereof is ASJ Narottam Kaushal, where on a reading of the decisions it has been brought out to us that the judge reproduces evidence proved by the prosecution by merely narrating facts from chargesheet ignoring the actual evidence,'' HC noted while hearing a case of robbery-cum-murder.
Marking its verdict to the inspecting judges of ASJ Kaushal, HC said its observations need to be brought to the attention of them. "In fact, the use of the word `blunder' would be a misnomer... the correct expression has to be that 'we noted a complete non application of mind by the judge','' the judges went on to note in their verdict, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal failed to note that the statement by the lone survivor of the crime had given a different statement in court to what was attributed to her in the chargesheet.
"These misdemeanours noted by us and committed by ASJ Kaushal were ignored by us as we thought they were aberrations, but by the time we detected the fifth such case, we realized that these were not aberrations but instances of a judge totally oblivious of his duties,'' the HC observed, even as it partially reversed the trial court's order and acquitted one of the accused.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-reprimands-inept-ASJ/articleshow/5511060.cms
Topics:Delhi High Court R Justice Suresh Kait Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court reprimanded an additional sessions judge for blindly relying on the version of the prosecution and ignoring actual evidence while delivering judgments. Equating the lapse to a judge sleeping on his job, a division bench comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Suresh Kait on Wednesday termed it as nothing short of "serious blunder'' and "misdemeanour.''
The HC was alarmed to note that not just once but five times it came across cases where additional sessions judge Narottam Kaushal simply copied extracts of the chargesheet onto his verdict and ignored what the witnessess actually said in court. "Where the judge proceeds to sleep or take a short or long nap, the casualty is life and liberty of the accused,'' the judges noted, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal had dealt in a cavalier fashion with cases where the maximum penalty is death. HC was surprised to note that the ASJ didn't even record the different stand taken by witnesses in court, instead chose to stick to facts as mentioned in the chargesheet.
"This is the fifth decision noted by us in the last 10 working days, author whereof is ASJ Narottam Kaushal, where on a reading of the decisions it has been brought out to us that the judge reproduces evidence proved by the prosecution by merely narrating facts from chargesheet ignoring the actual evidence,'' HC noted while hearing a case of robbery-cum-murder.
Marking its verdict to the inspecting judges of ASJ Kaushal, HC said its observations need to be brought to the attention of them. "In fact, the use of the word `blunder' would be a misnomer... the correct expression has to be that 'we noted a complete non application of mind by the judge','' the judges went on to note in their verdict, pointing out how ASJ Kaushal failed to note that the statement by the lone survivor of the crime had given a different statement in court to what was attributed to her in the chargesheet.
"These misdemeanours noted by us and committed by ASJ Kaushal were ignored by us as we thought they were aberrations, but by the time we detected the fifth such case, we realized that these were not aberrations but instances of a judge totally oblivious of his duties,'' the HC observed, even as it partially reversed the trial court's order and acquitted one of the accused.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/HC-reprimands-inept-ASJ/articleshow/5511060.cms
Forced to eat beef, NRI's wife gets divorce
Shibu Thomas, TNN, 17 October 2009, 03:08am IST
MUMBAI: A man forcing his traditional Indian wife to consume beef, pork and alcohol, forcing her to pose in photographs on a website amounts to cruelty, the Bombay high court has decreed. A division bench of Justice P B Majumdar and Justice R V More on Friday upheld a family court order allowing a Ghatkopar resident to divorce her US-based husband.
"This is an eye-opener for parents whose daughter is going to marry a person settled in a foreign country," said the judges. "In such cases they are required to take appropriate care to find out the credentials of the person who has settled in the other country. If the matrimonial knot is tied without proper verification, it may result in serious difficulties, as has happened in the present case."
Naina, 32, married California resident Ritesh Karnik (36) in June 2002 in Nashik according to Hindu Vedic rites and moved to the US with him. Their marital bliss did not last long, with Naina returning to India within seven months and filing for divorce.
The aggrieved wife claimed that after reaching the US, Ritesh insisted on her discarding her traditional lifestyle for the American one. He made her cut her hair and eat beef and pork, even asking her to cook meat on days when she was fasting, "showing no respect for Gods and Hindu deities". When she refused, he would deny her money to buy Indian food, and she had to survive on bread and jam. Her other grievances: on a trip to Hawaii, Ritesh forced her to wear "short and vulgar dresses", "mix with boys and girls in parties" and later uploaded her photographs on websites.
Ritesh's lawyers, while denying that he had uploaded her photographs, argued that there was no cruelty in asking one's wife to cook a certain food or wear a particular kind of outfit. "Naina married Ritesh with the full knowledge that she was required to settle in America. Consequently she cannot make any complaints regarding the lifestyle which she was required to follow," Ritesh's advocate contended, adding that she was expected to "adjust" to the environment of the new country.
The judges, however, did not buy this argument. "It is not expected from Naina to sacrifice her own culture and adopt an atmosphere which may not suit a lady (brought up in a) different Indian culture altogether," remarked the court. "To ask a wife to wear a particular type of outfit or compelling her to take wine or alcohol, in our view, can be said to be an act of cruelty to the wife. Even if the husband compels the wife to mix with his friends when she is unwilling, it would also amount to cruelty to her." The judges also took a strong view of Naina's allegation that her photographs in short dresses of the couple's trip to Hawaii were uploaded on websites under fake profiles. "Normally no wife will tolerate the projection of her photographs on websites," the judges said.
Naina told the court that she did not want any maintenance from Ritesh. During the hearing of the appeal, Ritesh offered divorce if Naina withdrew all the criminal cases she had registered against him under the cyber crime laws for allegedly uploading her photographs. Naina refused. The court also rejected Ritesh's plea for a retrial in the family court — Ritesh had said that while he would not come to India, his mother should be allowed to testify on his behalf.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Forced-to-eat-beef-NRIs-wife-gets-divorce/articleshow/5133285.cms
MUMBAI: A man forcing his traditional Indian wife to consume beef, pork and alcohol, forcing her to pose in photographs on a website amounts to cruelty, the Bombay high court has decreed. A division bench of Justice P B Majumdar and Justice R V More on Friday upheld a family court order allowing a Ghatkopar resident to divorce her US-based husband.
"This is an eye-opener for parents whose daughter is going to marry a person settled in a foreign country," said the judges. "In such cases they are required to take appropriate care to find out the credentials of the person who has settled in the other country. If the matrimonial knot is tied without proper verification, it may result in serious difficulties, as has happened in the present case."
Naina, 32, married California resident Ritesh Karnik (36) in June 2002 in Nashik according to Hindu Vedic rites and moved to the US with him. Their marital bliss did not last long, with Naina returning to India within seven months and filing for divorce.
The aggrieved wife claimed that after reaching the US, Ritesh insisted on her discarding her traditional lifestyle for the American one. He made her cut her hair and eat beef and pork, even asking her to cook meat on days when she was fasting, "showing no respect for Gods and Hindu deities". When she refused, he would deny her money to buy Indian food, and she had to survive on bread and jam. Her other grievances: on a trip to Hawaii, Ritesh forced her to wear "short and vulgar dresses", "mix with boys and girls in parties" and later uploaded her photographs on websites.
Ritesh's lawyers, while denying that he had uploaded her photographs, argued that there was no cruelty in asking one's wife to cook a certain food or wear a particular kind of outfit. "Naina married Ritesh with the full knowledge that she was required to settle in America. Consequently she cannot make any complaints regarding the lifestyle which she was required to follow," Ritesh's advocate contended, adding that she was expected to "adjust" to the environment of the new country.
The judges, however, did not buy this argument. "It is not expected from Naina to sacrifice her own culture and adopt an atmosphere which may not suit a lady (brought up in a) different Indian culture altogether," remarked the court. "To ask a wife to wear a particular type of outfit or compelling her to take wine or alcohol, in our view, can be said to be an act of cruelty to the wife. Even if the husband compels the wife to mix with his friends when she is unwilling, it would also amount to cruelty to her." The judges also took a strong view of Naina's allegation that her photographs in short dresses of the couple's trip to Hawaii were uploaded on websites under fake profiles. "Normally no wife will tolerate the projection of her photographs on websites," the judges said.
Naina told the court that she did not want any maintenance from Ritesh. During the hearing of the appeal, Ritesh offered divorce if Naina withdrew all the criminal cases she had registered against him under the cyber crime laws for allegedly uploading her photographs. Naina refused. The court also rejected Ritesh's plea for a retrial in the family court — Ritesh had said that while he would not come to India, his mother should be allowed to testify on his behalf.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Forced-to-eat-beef-NRIs-wife-gets-divorce/articleshow/5133285.cms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)